William Schryver Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 Kind of gets right to the heart of the thread, doesn't it?The issue incarnate.!I suppose I should have added an lol smilie to my original post. I refrained from doing so only because I realized, upon reflection, that I was actually kind of serious. In any event, I find it virtually impossible to pass up an opportunity to distress and otherwise antagonize DavidT, mercyngrace, and the rest of their "progressive" friends.
Xander Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 What part? That he takes pleasure and is excited to see Greg "set his sights" on Joanna? The implication that he takes glee in seeing them 'taken down'? Which?You have to understand that William revels in this old-school "war" mentality between LDS members and former members. For him and his ilk (which, thankfully, is a very small minority; including the likes of bigoted apologists like DCP, Hamblin, Midgley, Smith, Pahoran, Loran). It is nice that some of the more sensible and scholarly folks in the Church have made conscious effort to distance themselves from such attitudes. What remains to be seen is which side will win out. For instance, if this school of thought had more weight to throw around, then folks like me would never be permitted to post on this forum. These guys consider themselves the keepers of the sheep and they know they cannot handle debate on these issues, which is why they prefer to have lecture privileges where their intended targets are not permitted to respond (i.e. banned posters on this forum or those incapable of responding to Dan's attack blog)What we have learned beyond all doubt from this event is that Dan and his FARMS apologists can no longer deceive people into thinking FARMS doesn't do attack pieces. Of course they do. That's essentially what they do. We know now that Dan's scholarly standards are far below a level of civility acceptable by Church leaders, which is interesting given his repeated claims of desiring civility. He debates nothing and ignores everyone he perceives as a threat. For instance, he ignores me because he says I'm too unpleasant to be around. OK, so what is his excuse for ignoring virtually every other person on the planet (like Dehlin) who has done nothing whatsoever that could be considered uncivil? He cannot own up to his attacks and debate that person on an open forum, so he retreats to his usual attack-dog publication where he gets someone else to attack whoever it is he perceives as a threat. He did the same thing a decade ago when JP Holding kindly gave me a dozen copies of his book to give to Dan and his FARMS cohorts. I told Dan beforehand that JP used a pseudonym and that he had a good reason to do so, and that nothing should be said about that out of respect for his desire to remain anonymous. So Dan hands the review job to one of FARMS's hatchet men, Russel McGregor, who attacks JP as an "anti-Mormon attacker," claimed his arguments are of the boilerplate anti-Mormon variety (every one of them were unique and never before seen by apologists) claimed he is anti-Mormon because he doesn't consider us Christian (which he never believed nor said even once in his book) and addressed not a single argument in the book. Oh, and then he mentions JP's real name, which he found while from googling his atheist stalkers. When I kindly asked Dan and Russel to remove that from the online "review" they kindly ignored the request and broke contact with me. Years later Russel said he apologized to JP, which I proved never happened after posting emails of our exchange during this controversy. Russel instead mocked JP for making a big deal of this and showed no form of apology or desire to apologize.But this is just one of the many, many examples of the hit pieces Dan Peterson sends out to the web for the purposes of saving his flock.So it is funny to see Hamblin and Peterson complain about defamation from a guy who was simply trying to preempt against an attack piece. Dehlin heard this from faithful LDS members among the FARMS ranks which proves that the critics aren't the only people who think Dan's attack pieces are over the top. Dan is the same guy who threw a tantrum when he found out that Robert Ritner was considering a libel suit against him for spreading false rumors about why he considered John Gee's scholarship sub-par, claiming falsely that he was thrown off the dissertation committee at Gee's request, insinuating, as always, that his anti-Mormonism prevented him from being objective. After gleefully misinforming his flock over the matter for several years, Dan suddenly shut his trap about the incident. Now it appears it was shut again, but this time by an LDS leader. That's very telling.
William Schryver Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 What's heterodoxy?It's a lot like pornography: difficult to define ... but I know it when I see it.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 !In any event, I find it virtually impossible to pass up an opportunity to distress and otherwise antagonize DavidT, mercyngrace, and the rest of their "progressive" friends. I wondered. Funny.
Mark Beesley Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 We know now that Dan's scholarly standards are far below a level of civility acceptable by Church leaders, which is interesting given his repeated claims of desiring civility.How do we know what is acceptable by Church leaders. Has anyone from the ranks of the 70 or the 12 made an appearance to declare such, or are we relying on secondhand accounts?
William Schryver Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 ...After gleefully misinforming his flock over the matter for several years, Dan suddenly shut his trap about the incident. Now it appears it was shut again, but this time by an LDS leader. That's very telling.It's truly astounding how the anti-Mormon mob manufactures fantasies to stroke their fondest hopes and dreams.You and Xander have been thread banned for flaming.
CASteinman Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 William Schryver,I have been chastised for my egregious insults to you. I hope you know I was only joking -- trying to be ironic. I had thought that the over-the-top tenor and and approach would signal it was a satire. If I offended you, I apologize. It was not my intent at all.
Gohan Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 Wow.I know right? Tis sad. I think that we all need to take some time, sit back, read 1 Corinthians 13, and then think about it for a while. Always tends to help me when I'm feeling contentious, and I think that it can be prescribed here as well.But as hard as I tried I couldn't find any news on this Peterson-Dehlin feud in any of Utah's print media. Not even BYU's The Universe.Perhaps I'm just missing the significance of this feud. Had a good grasp of Hatfield and McCoy though!Maybe the Student Review will pick it up, but I doubt it. I don't think this little feud deserves the webspace or ink. And it does remind me of the Hatfield/McCoy feud...which makes me really want to see the new History Channel event on that, but I digress...
Minos Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 We are removing flamers along with the out and out name callers. (Be cautious about sarcasm, mods are likely skimming and will take it at face value).
Mark Beesley Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 But as hard as I tried I couldn't find any news on this Peterson-Dehlin feud in any of Utah's print media. Not even BYU's The Universe.Perhaps I'm just missing the significance of this feud. Had a good grasp of Hatfield and McCoy though!Somebody hears from somebody else that someone else has submitted an article for publication to the Maxwell Institute, and before a decision on publication can be made, indeed before the managing editor of the publishing body has even reviewed the article, somebody #! complains and says he has enlisted support from unnamed General Authorities to stop publication . . .Where's the newsworthy story in that? 1
mercyngrace Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) !I suppose I should have added an lol smilie to my original post. I refrained from doing so only because I realized, upon reflection, that I was actually kind of serious. In any event, I find it virtually impossible to pass up an opportunity to distress and otherwise antagonize DavidT, mercyngrace, and the rest of their "progressive" friends. How do you define "progressive"? If you mean people who are trying their damnedest to follow Christ., GUILTY. If you mean people who are trying to change the church, this would be a perfect example of baseless personal attack. Oh, and if you mean politically liberal or democrat... wrong again. Edited May 11, 2012 by mercyngrace 3
Stormy Waters Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 We are removing flamers along with the out and out name callers. (Be cautious about sarcasm, mods are likely skimming and will take it at face value).Hopefully that includes those on your "side."
CASteinman Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 Hopefully, once this Dehlin article is finally printed and out the door, Greg can turn his sights on Brooks.I would have never been interested in reading this article about Dehlin, except that now, the furor raised has made it more interesting. "Just how bad are things?" I must wonder.On the other hand, while I can't ever recall reading an article by Brooks that I felt good about, I have never thought she would be a good subject for such a review. She seems pretty straight forward about her positions and I don't think she is camouflaged by a veneer of objectivity. I just wish she was not considered a spokesperson for the LDS Faith by so many people, simply because she blogs her opinions. 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) Hopefully that includes those on your "side."It does. Will (Member) is no longer in this thread along with Kevin (Ex Member). Edited May 11, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Scott Lloyd Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 !I suppose I should have added an lol smilie to my original post. I refrained from doing so only because I realized, upon reflection, that I was actually kind of serious. In any event, I find it virtually impossible to pass up an opportunity to distress and otherwise antagonize DavidT, mercyngrace, and the rest of their "progressive" friends. We have a beloved dog at home. He enjoys car rides. But when we turn on the windshield wipers, he invariably will lunge at them with the viciousness he reserves for any invading enemy. I confess I sometimes turn them on for the sake of my own amusement at his reaction. It's a guilty pleasure. 1
Nomad Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 We have a beloved dog at home. He enjoys car rides. But when we turn on the windshield wipers, he invariably will lunge at them with the viciousness he reserves for any invading enemy. I confess I sometimes turn them on for the sake of my own amusement at his reaction.It's a guilty pleasure.Some people have no sense of humor.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 Wait a sec. I like Will and I read everything he says. However Kevin was banned too. I am not claiming that Will did anything to justify a ban. But I think it was a preemptive measure to make sure things don't get out of control. I also don't think the mod's are out to get anyone.But I do agree that this board has become some what of a joke. It just is not what it used to be.While I don't agree with every decision the mods have made in the past, I have to say the board is generally run very well, and I commend them for the job they do. Of course, I haven't yet been subject to their reproach. Maybe it's just a matter of time. ;-) 1
why me Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 If John doesn't accept I'll take you up on the offer. I think that an interview would be difficult since the article has not been published. What exactly would be discussed without the publication of the article. It would just be a hearsay interview. Nothing of substance. The article needs to be published and then, there can be good discussion and dialogue.
cinepro Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) I think that an interview would be difficult since the article has not been published. What exactly would be discussed without the publication of the article. It would just be a hearsay interview. Nothing of substance. The article needs to be published and then, there can be good discussion and dialogue.Well, we've managed to make it to 373 posts, so there must be some substance to be had.Right? Edited May 11, 2012 by cinepro
why me Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 While I don't agree with every decision the mods have made in the past, I have to say the board is generally run very well, and I commend them for the job they do.Of course, I haven't yet been subject to their reproach. Maybe it's just a matter of time. ;-)I second what you have said. What becomes important is that this board does not become a flame throwing board like the critic boards. What I find amazing is how doubting members can find comfort from exmormon boards that constantly flame throw against the GAs and the members and the church in general. Is this really what the doubting members wish to become if they leave the lds church? Do they see the example that such boards set?
John Larsen Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 I think that an interview would be difficult since the article has not been published. What exactly would be discussed without the publication of the article. It would just be a hearsay interview. Nothing of substance. The article needs to be published and then, there can be good discussion and dialogue.We would definitely wait for the publication of the article. All of this furvor is just an amusing sidebar. I think most of us will hold out making our opinions until the article is published. 1
why me Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 Well, we've managed to make it to 373 posts, so there must be some substance to be had.Right? If you notice just what is being discussed on this thread is not substance about the article since very few have seen the article but rather other topics related around the article. Not much for interview material. Now if the article was published, more can be said of substance and dialogue about the information in the article. And that was my point. What would there to be discussed of substance about an article that hasn't been published. Even john has not seen the article and so what can he say about it?
John Larsen Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 While I don't agree with every decision the mods have made in the past, I have to say the board is generally run very well, and I commend them for the job they do.Of course, I haven't yet been subject to their reproach. Maybe it's just a matter of time. ;-)I'm still here, so that can't be all bad. But then again, I don't post that often anymore.
CASteinman Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 Wait a sec. I like Will and I read everything he says. However Kevin was banned too. I am not claiming that Will did anything to justify a ban. But I think it was a preemptive measure to make sure things don't get out of control. I also don't think the mod's are out to get anyone.But I do agree that this board has become some what of a joke. It just is not what it used to be.I am way too new here to know what the joke would be, but it seems that perhaps using a banhammer as a pre-emptive measure is unlikely. I can't imagine that would be a tolerable situation. But maybe the moderators could try -- instead of banning -- some sort of "time out" deal? A few hours -- a day. In my experience this is a better way to correct behavior and does not lead to bitterness. Of course, bans have to occur from time to time -- after all, some folk are just egregious and unrepentant. (And I am not excluding myself from that group, I just hope I can fit in and not earn the Wrath of the Gods).
why me Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 We would definitely wait for the publication of the article. All of this furvor is just an amusing sidebar. I think most of us will hold out making our opinions until the article is published.And that was my point. But the suggestion of an interview was made regardless of the publication of the article. I saw no point in that. I think that the article will be published, In fact, it has to be published now. And john needs to give it his blessing. Then, the dialogue and debate can begin. If I were john I would find it an honor that Dan wrote a piece about my podcasts. I would not care what was said about me and the podcasts since I would have many defenders. It just means that I had arrived!
Recommended Posts